Mitch Daniels and the Completely Misunderstood “Social Truce” Idea

Democrats did better with a president who wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”; Republicans would have done better by adopting former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’s call for a “truce” on social issues.

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved.

When Daniels said this, social conservatives mistakenly assumed that it was another sign that their priorities were going to be ignored and their support taken for granted once again, and moderates and liberals within and outside the GOP celebrated the proposal because they interpreted it just as wrongly as Stephens does. What Daniels meant was that he believed that the fiscal and economic problems in the U.S. were so grave that the next president, regardless of who it was, would be compelled to cooperate with the other party, which would require that the president “call a truce on the so-called social issues” and “get along for a little while.” Daniels was making the case that culture war and “values” arguments over “the so-called social issues” needed to be temporarily postponed by both sides, but he has been almost universally misinterpreted as saying that Republicans ought to moderate their positions on these issues. It’s important to understand that Daniels wasn’t saying that the GOP ought to change anything about their positions on these issues.

In that interview, Daniels wasn’t concerned with coming up with a way to make the GOP more electorally viable, which is what seems to preoccupy Stephens in his column. What interested him in that interview was emphasizing the gravity of the country’s fiscal and economic problems, which he thought might be more quickly resolved if the “so-called social issues” didn’t somehow get in the way. The main problem with Daniels’ proposal was that it seemed to assume that the parties aren’t divided just as deeply over fiscal and economic matters as they are on social and cultural ones. If Obama called Daniels’ proposed “truce,” it wouldn’t reduce the differences between the parties over entitlements, tax rates, the military budget, or other domestic spending. Other than annoying activists and reliable voters, such a “truce” wouldn’t achieve anything.

Hide 7 comments

I mostly agree with you, but I do think there would be some value in such a truce. The parties are divided over the solutions to the economic problems, but not with the same level of vitriol as we saw with the reaction to the rape comments that cost the GOP two Senate seats or the ugly finger pointing after Prop 8 passed in California.

Social issues are more “real” than Big Numbers, the fights get more personal. Anything that ratchets down the level of polemic is useful.

As I understand you, Daniel, a “social truce”–as applied to SSM–would mean that the left and right would stand down on the subject; the right would stop seeking to further restrict it, and the left would stop seeking to expand it.

The problem (for conservatives) with this idea of a “truce” is that while social issues are great vote-mobilizers, on many of the issues there isn’t anything for Congress to do. SSM, barring a Constitutional amendment that would be DOA if proposed for ratification, is simply not a concern of the federal legislative branch–instead it is a matter for states, and for the federal court system, to decide. And even if Congress (including candidates for office as well as incumbents) could agree to a “truce”, how would such a thing be binding on state legislatures, activists, and litigants?

The fundamental divide in Congress IS over economic policy. One side of the debate thinks that tax cuts targeted towards capital will stimulate revenue growth, and/or that the pain of austerity needs to be felt by an over-entitled poor and middle class; the other things that the wealthy needs to bear the brunt of debt reduction.

Social issues come into play only as ways of marshalling coalitions to support these two fundamental world-views. Both sides play this game; xenophobic and religious appeals convince many of the working poor that economic policies that directly undermine their interests are nonetheless good for them (either as “eating ones vegetables”, or out of a desire to spite some other undeserving demographic); and many liberal elites who would benefit from GOP social policy nonetheless side with the left, in large part to not be found with the first group of rubes.

It doesn’t really matter much what Daniels intended by the statement, as it has been taken to mean that the Republicans should do what most of them want to do anyway, which is to stop bothering with all those annoying social issues like abortion and gay marriage and get to the real business of amnesty and tax cuts. It might be worth it for Daniels’ boosters to point out that he doesn’t intend to betray the base in this manner, but clearly he is in the minority on that point. Look at Stephens’ column for one…if he is A-OK with abortion, gay marriage, and mass illegal immigration then why is he claiming to be part of the base to begin with?

And even if Congress (including candidates for office as well as incumbents) could agree to a “truce”, how would such a thing be binding on state legislatures, activists, and litigants?

Exactly. A ‘social truce’ is a theoretical concept that doesn’t and can’t exist in any sort of real practical sense, kind of like a fiscally-responsible Democrat (or Republican, for that matter, for the last several administrations).

Bret Stephens is just another neocon who wants a republican party viable enough to continue optional American wars. Beyond that he has no concern how democrat the GOP becomes.

I will not support a GOP that is the democrat-lite party. I will simply not vote for their candidates. There are tens of millions of conservatives like myself out there.

The choice is clear: Dump the neocon-and-greed-is-good policies of the last 12 years, fight a tough fight with a good possibility of finally winning, or become the democrat-lite party, lose tens of millions of supporters and never win another election.

Matt, I’d like to see updated polling data, but I think you’ll find that a sizable and growing minority of people who regularly vote Republican do NOT favor federal action to prohibit same-sex marriage or abortion.

As a constitutional matter, they’re right too, as the U.S. Constitution does not confer any power on the federal government to intervene “on either side” in these areas. These issues, like so many others, are reserved for the States per the Tenth Amendment.

For example, I favor pro-life laws in my State, but I do not want the federal government to violate the Constitution by imposing that view on the whole country.